I have read it, and it does discuss the issue I raised. 50p is not necessarily 
50p when your display has finish motion interpolating it (or not as the case 
may be). Just because people don't come away from an article agreeing with you 
completely does not mean they did not read and understand it.

I spent 5 years working in the IPTV industry, watching customers butcher image 
quality so they could squeeze another TV stream down an ADSL line. I do know 
what I'm talking about.

The article failed to mention the angle subtended at the eye. Pixel resolution 
is partly about whether you can see them. Sit a mile away and you can only see 
one apparent pixel. Sit next to a 60 inch TV and you can see all the pixels, 
and you need a higher frame rate to not perceive flicker due to the greater 
angle subtended at the eye.

Also sensitivity to flicker varies with different people. I am very sensitive 
to it. Back in the days of CRT monitors as the size of the displays went up and 
the persistence of the phosphors went down over the years (to satisfy gamers 
who insisted on no visible motion blur) I kept having to push frame rates up. 
By the time I was on a 19 inch monitor at the end of the the CRT era the 
phosphor persistence was so damned short that anything less than 120Hz refresh 
would give me splitting headaches and as a computer programmer that isn't good. 
The "sample and hold" nature of LCDs saved me from this, they are a godsend.

-- 
Owen Smith <owen.sm...@cantab.net>
Cambridge, UK

> On 9 Apr 2018, at 21:48, Tony Quinn <t...@tqvideo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Read the John  Watkinson article.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer


_______________________________________________
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Reply via email to